Israel absolutely has the right to fight Hamas. But on the question of whether it's really defense vs avenge on entire population, I urge you to go through recent nytimes article titled "Gaza After Nine Weeks of War" with an open mind [1]. Entire neighborhoods has been bombed to rubbles, parks and roads have been bulldozed. Every single civilian structures, hotels, homes, playgrounds, port- on a large stretch beside sea has been utterly destroyed.

That's not a picture of a moral army fighting insurgents embedded in Civilian population, it's the picture of a fight against the entire civilian population- or "mowing the grass" in Israeli military's parlance.

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2023/12/12/world/middlee...

> it's the picture of a fight against the entire civilian population

Israel could have been done with that 6 weeks ago, if they didn't care about making the distinction. It's a pretty small region, after all.

Are they doing a good job in distinguishing military targets and civilians? No. Could anybody do better and still make progress towards the stated goal? Uncertain.

But I don't think that "Israel is not even trying to protect civilians" is supported by Israel's actions.

Every time somebody says this, I always ask the same question - what is the alternative? What should Israel do instead?

This is war. War is horrible and tragic, and far more so because Hamas hides within civilian buildings and used human shields.

What should Israel do instead to protect itself and to fight Hamas?

Please, go through the images first. Then explain to me, how bulldozing a park aids in Israel's effort to fight Hamas?

Again, Israel has the right to fight and fight hard, anyone would do that in their place. But I think many people in the west are awefully unaware of just the scale and magnitude of the destruction Israel has unleashed.

Yes, Israel has destroyed a lot of Gaza. This is a big problem, especially for the "day after" the war. As for many people being unaware - most people are unaware of anything to do with this conflict and only know a couple of slogans.

To your question - how does bulldozing a park help? I have no idea. Nobody outside of the IDF really knows the specific reasons for bombing some locations. I trust the IDF to not be shooting rockets at targets for no reason, which is probably a level of trust that most people don't share.

I'm sure someone with more military understanding could offer plausible theories, but if you're inclined to believe that Israel is trying to level Gaza just to hurt Gazans, I doubt any theory they offer would sound convincing.

The thing is, bulldozing is also happening in the West Bank, which has nothing to do with Hamas. Of note in this conflict, many genocidal comments from Israeli ministers, along with footage taken by IDF soldiers glorifying the destruction, several faked testimonies (admitted by the IDF) including the infamous calendar video, and a lack of evidence over claims that hospitals are being used as Hamas HQs, add up to a notable inconsistency between Israel’s stated aims and what is actually happening there.

As referred to in other comments, terrorism in Northern Ireland and Spain were solved by coming to the negotiating table. Additionally, rather than bombing civilians which is more likely to Foster a new generation of terrorists out for revenge, Israel could simply spend that war chest donated by the US ($3bn / year and a $14bn aid package) invest in Gaza, give the citizens at least the daily minimum of water recommended by the UN (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water_supply_and_sanitation_...) and a reliable electricity supply. As the country responsible for these resources it is inhumane to do otherwise. There is a correlation between treating people well, and a lack of violence from them.

Of that aid from the US to a distinctly non-third world country, this is probably the most interesting question. Countries very rarely give money for free, so something is being bought here. Nowhere is the question being asked what that is, but it points to unsaid motives.

> The thing is, bulldozing is also happening in the West Bank, which has nothing to do with Hamas.

Well, "nothing to do" is a bit of a stretch. There are active Hamas militants in the WB as well, and their actions on October 7th have polled at as having around 70% approval in the WB (which lest I be misunderstood, I mention to indicate a willingness to cooperate with Hamas by the populace, not as justification to attack them for their views).

> As referred to in other comments, terrorism in Northern Ireland and Spain were solved by coming to the negotiating table.

Great. Israel did that multiple times, and Palestinians have never agreed to any deal offered them. Hamas isn't really trying to negotiate here though - their stated goal is to kill all Jews and take back the entire land.

> Additionally, rather than bombing civilians which is more likely to Foster a new generation of terrorists out for revenge, Israel could simply spend that war chest donated by the US ($3bn / year and a $14bn aid package) invest in Gaza,

So, disarm itself completely and hope that Hamas doesn't do what it promised it would do over and over, and has already proved capable of doing?

Gaza gets enormous amounts of financial aid, e.g. $600m in 2020 (just the first figure I found on Google). You know where that aid goes? Hamas steals it to finance its war against Israel.

You can literally see videos of them attacking food aid trucks coming into Gaza now and stealing the food for themselves.

> As the country responsible for these resources it is inhumane to do otherwise. There is a correlation between treating people well, and a lack of violence from them.

Israel isn't wholly responsible for these resources, Hamas is the government of Gaza and is responsible for it. Israel provides some water to Gaza and sells some electricity to Gaza.

But really, why do you think Gaza, despite enormous financial aid from around the world, is still reliant on Israel for so many things? It's not like Mexico is reliant on the US for everything.

> Well, "nothing to do" is a bit of a stretch. There are active Hamas militants in the WB as well, and their actions on October 7th have polled at as having around 70% approval in the WB (which lest I be misunderstood, I mention to indicate a willingness to cooperate with Hamas by the populace, not as justification to attack them for their views).

An approval rating does not justify bulldozing buildings in the WB, nor detaining WB Palestinians for no reason (see https://www.hrw.org/news/2023/11/29/why-does-israel-have-so-....

and

https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2023/11/28/arrests 133 from the WB). The detention law is discriminatory, and has been called out by rights groups.

> Great. Israel did that multiple times, and Palestinians have never agreed to any deal offered them. Hamas isn't really trying to negotiate here though - their stated goal is to kill all Jews and take back the entire land.

Aside from proof here, so what? Rejection happened multiple times in NI before the Good Friday Agreement was drafted, this does not mean it should not be attempted again.

> So, disarm itself completely and hope that Hamas doesn't do what it promised it would do over and over, and has already proved capable of doing?

I didn't say that. Disarming completely is a very black and white statement, truces and cooperation are forged from small steps eg. a reliable and adequate water supply.

> Gaza gets enormous amounts of financial aid, e.g. $600m in 2020 (just the first figure I found on Google). You know where that aid goes? Hamas steals it to finance its war against Israel.

Again, finance is no good if basic human rights are not met eg. water, electricity (and arguably internet).

> Israel isn't wholly responsible for these resources, Hamas is the government of Gaza and is responsible for it. Israel provides some water to Gaza and sells some electricity to Gaza.

Literally, the first sentence on the wikipedia page states that Israel has complete control over the water supply https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water_supply_and_sanitation_...

Electricity is probably the same, given that the supply to Gaza was completely cut off. To claim otherwise is disingenuous.

At the end of the day, fight from civvy areas, get civvy areas demolished. That's the nature of the beast.

If you establish HQ in a building, that's now an acceptable target. The alternative is that civilian areas are an invulnerability shield that lets you conduct whatever operations you want.

And this is Israel holding back. They have the option to level all of Gaza, they don't. They do roof knocks, conduct evacuations. And they didn't break the ceasefire conditions either.

Everything you said in your comment has been debunked. IDF claimed that Hamas had HQ in Al Shifa hospital, and all they found as proof was a calendar, and they stopped saying there was a HQ. They then moved onto another hospital claiming that was the correct HQ, then that turned out to not be true as well.

Regarding ceasefire, Israel has broken a total of 17 ceasefires in the past. Ranging from assassinations to straight up bombing civilians during ceasefire period.

I don't understand your reasoning with "they do roof knocks, and tell people to evacuate, so it's all good when civilian areas get demolished and children die, that's war!"

Israel has done nothing but lie since the beginning of this genocide.

This is all happening alongside the blatant terrorism happening in the West Bank with the settlers. You can't seriously defend a nation when the leader is openly saying "wipe them all out - all of them."

I think Israel has to ask itself why there is such a large militant force on its borders, embedded in the civilian population. Why the population support it and why it is hell bent on destroying Israel. Why for example does this problem not occur for other nations? Could Israel be responsible in some way for the situation it is in? The alternative might lie some way from addressing that.

> why there is such a large militant force on its borders

Look further back in history to the founding of Israel. None of what you imply Israel is responsible for was a thing back then and yet all their neighbours banded together to destroy it. Most of those neighbours eventually lost interest, and now it‘s pretty much only Hamas and Hezbollah. Why? Because they get weapons and money from Iran, which has made it their goal to destroy Israel. Most Gazans just want to live in peace and prosperity. Without Iranian support, Hamas would be gone, attacks on Israel would mostly stop and everyone could finally look toward a future. The Saudis were finally going to reconcile with Israel which would have been a step in that direction, but Iran is making sure we stay stuck in this perpetual war, as they have every interest to.

Being located in the Middle East is their main mistake. Being a Jewish state in the Middle East makes it even worse.

I have no love for Islam (nor hatred) but Jews have always been considered a protected class under Islamic law. Which I mention to bring up the point that if we had an organic Jewish state that arose naturally (i.e. via voluntary accumulation of land via purchases, etc, as opposed to theft which is how the state of Israel was formed), I see no reason why they couldn't maintain healthy relations with the surrounding states.

I'd also be remiss if I didn't mention that the modern phenomenon of violent Islamic terrorism did not exist a century ago. In my view it's basically a direct result of Israeli & Western foreign policy. It's really hard to take land from people and in some cases commit literal massacres (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deir_Yassin_massacre) and not end up with a significant portion of the affected population turning to terrorism.

> I'd also be remiss if I didn't mention that the modern phenomenon of violent Islamic terrorism did not exist a century ago.

That is incredibly untrue. The roots of this conflict don't go back to 1948 or 1967. They go back to 1918 when the Ottoman empire fell. Prior to that jews and arabs lived in relative peace in the same area-- until the allies overthrew the Ottomans leaving a power vaccuum and uncertainty about the future, which lead to frequent civil violence: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1920_Nebi_Musa_riots

What happened in 1948 to trigger all its famous events? The British finally withdrew from the area they called Mandatory Palestine and left the inhabitants to figure it out for themselves. But by then both sides had a lot of distrust for each other from decades of tension. And the British knew they were living a shitshow behind since dealing with said shitshow as precisely what they had bored of.

> On 7 and 8 March [1920], demonstrations took place in all cities of Palestine, shops were closed and many Jews were attacked. Attackers carried slogans such as "Death to Jews" or "Palestine is our land and the Jews are our dogs!"

It is really important to note that the roots of this conflict are over 100 years old, and the reason it didn't exist before is there was a authoritarian empire operating the area keeping the peace and keeping self determination totally off the table for everyone but the Ottoman's Turks.

Islamic terrorism has roots in Arab nationalism that has risen after collapse of Ottoman Empire. Sure, you can see the fall of Ottoman Empire as a result of Western foreign policy, but even late Ottoman Empire was not such a peaceful place, and committed several well-described genocides.

Since then every country in Middle East existed in one of two modes:

1. Murderous dictatorship (sometimes supporting terrorist groups)

2. Failed state controlled by various terrorist groups.

The only thing the West has arguably been doing in the XX century is moving countries from first category to the second one.

Israel is a happy exception here, although it has many flaws compared to democracies established in more peaceful regions

Are you really not aware of the Jewish massacres in the middle east?

What did the US do in Afghanistan and Iraq? I don't remember them leveling cities.

I think an honest answer would be to end occupation and oppression of the Palestinians by Israel. Any occupying force has an interest to silence and stop indigenous people from claiming their land rights.

For example, Gaza had been described as an open air prison for almost 2 decades because its borders, imports, sea usage, had all been controlled by Israel. This is not what we call “sovereign rule”. The West Bank has been checkered with military checkpoints and illegal settlements, contravening international agreements.

When people are driven to desperation, and their lives are made miserable because the occupying forces want to remove them, they do not have many options.

I think it is quite adequate to compare Gaza to the situation in for example, the Warsaw Ghetto in WW2, when an uprising was quashed by occupying German forces. This Gaza is a heavily urban area with vast majority of civilians, it cannot be compared to two armies fighting on a battlefield.

As a Jew, I have quite a few qualms with the comparison to Warsaw. I'm not denying the suffering in Gaza in any way, but it's far fetched to put this on the same grounds as Warsaw, in which an estimated 300-400k Jews were murdered, and which was just one of an industrial system of mass murder.

I agree that the settlements are an obstacle to peace, no argument there. But there are solid reasons why the border between Israel and Gaza has been closed (putting aside the fact that we're not obligated to open our borders, especially when the other side isn't exactly friendly). Note that they also have a border with Egypt, how come that's pretty much closed as well? (I'll give you a hint - Gaza is ruled by what is basically a fanatic death cult, and Eygpt wants nothing to do with it).

Your proposed solution is "end occupation and oppression". I'll ignore the one-sided phrasing and just say we've tried that with the Oslo accords, the disengagement from Gaza, and numerous negotiations, all leading to this point in time. So again, what would you do?

1, this is a human issue above all. One does not have to be Jewish or non-Jewish to recognize the extreme human toll being exacted on Gaza. When I see bombs collapse buildings of innocent residents, hospitals invaded with entire ICU units dying, mass starvation due to a blockade, and a death toll with over 40% being children; I think all of this warrants comparisons with industrial mass murder. Just because it is being termed “self-defense” or a “war” does not make it any less blameworthy. Let’s look at the real human loss here: it’s mostly innocent people in an urban area being killed, where a large percentage of the population is children.

2, the terming of hamas as a “fanatic death cult” appears quite an extreme label. Hamas is more comparable to a political party with political, social, and military wings. In fact, it’s quite clear that Hamas’s brands itself as part of the resistance against occupation; and the motives for recent attacks lie in the Israeli aggression committed against Palestinians in the West Bank this summer and seeking to release Palestinian prisoners, many who were children, women, and held without formal charges. Even comparing how many hostages who have been released talked about how they were treated by Hamas, with the way Palestinian prisoners were treated by Israeli captors, shows that Hamas is not merely a “fanatic death cult”, given they treated prisoners with a degree of humanity they didn’t need to.

It’s also unclear that removing Hamas will fix the situation; after all, before Hamas, the PLO was labeled terrorists and dealt with brutally. In a resistance situation, the occupying force will typically seek to discredit and derail any process that threatens its control.

3, a desire to end occupation must be one that can be accepted by the occupied people. None of the peace process deals appeared to be honest efforts from the Israeli camp because the ultimate end goal of the occupying force has been to take control of “greater Israel” without the people who are living there.

I would propose a way to move forward for Israel would be a one-state solution: to recognize Palestinians as equal people with human rights, give them citizenship in a democratic rule, and allow them to return to their land. All of this without any military occupations. Because it is clear that a two-state solution has been dead for quite a while, given the occupying force has no intentions to end its theft of land in the West Bank.

> would propose a way to move forward for Israel would be a one-state solution: to recognize Palestinians as equal people with human rights, give them citizenship in a democratic rule, and allow them to return to their land. All of this without any military occupations.

I second this. South Africa managed to end apartheid without the need to split in a white-people country and a black-people country. The same can be done in Israel too.

>South Africa managed to end apartheid without the need to split in a white-people country and a black-people country. The same can be done in Israel too.

And decades later, South Africa is probably one of the most dangerous countries to live in, where people install flamethrowers on their cars because violent carjackings are so common and people who have any kind of money live in gated compounds with heavy security. South Africa doesn't look too much like a success story to me, and certainly doesn't look like it's completely eliminated a form of apartheid, it's just replaced apartheid enforced by the national government with an apartheid at the local levels.

South Africa's inequality and resultant crime can't be blamed on a one-state solution. The peaceful transition from Apartheid to an inclusive democracy absolutely was a success story in terms of overall wellbeing.

The remaining inequality (especially along racial lines), government corruption, and violent crime are terrible problems, yes, but pale in comparison to the dehumanising codified violence of Apartheid.

Are you seriously proposing that a two-state solution would have served the people of South Africa as a whole better in the long run? I think the resultant inequality would have been far worse. Do you have another proposal?

(Edit to point out that I'm not implying that what worked for South Africa can or can't work for Israel. This comment is about South Africa.)

(As an aside) I know this community prefers not to focus on weak arguments and avoid flame wars (no pun intended), but I have to point out blatant fear mongering:

> where people install flamethrowers on their cars because violent carjackings are so common

I wouldn't repeat this as fact. The device referenced was a short-lived gimmick from 1998, four years after South Africa's first democratic election. It is in no way a reflection of reality.

Yes, carjackings are a problem in South Africa, but repeating the flamethrower story reads like FUD.

>Are you seriously proposing that a two-state solution would have served the people of South Africa as a whole better in the long run?

I'm not proposing anything; I'm just pointing out that South Africa doesn't look like some kind of success story to me, but maybe to locals it is if it's genuinely better than what came before.

Fair enough. I can imagine how South Africa looks from the outside, but our experience does not match all the doom and gloom. I'd encourage anyone to visit - there is absolutely no risk of getting fried by someone's car flamethrower, at least.

I understand you meant no harm.

1. You've made the comparison between a (if we're being honest here), in the grand scale of things, rather insignificant military conflict between two parties, and industrial scale genocide. So I find the framing problematic. I would like this war to end just as much as you (probably more since I actually have something to lose here). But I don't see an alternative as long as Hamas is in power.

2. OK, let's agree to disagree.

3. I think a more accurate description would be that hardliners on both sides torpedoed it at various points in time. But sure, occupation.

So your solution for two groups of people who can't seem to stop killing each other is to put them together under one state? Sorry, but I think I'll politely pass :)

(And continue to hope for a peaceful, two state solution)

I wouldn't call forcibly displacing 2.3M citizens an insignificant conflict, in the face of 55 Hamas commanders that been claimed to have been killed vs 23K+ citizens, it is more similar than not, especially when one side has little military capability vs one of the strongest militaries in the world.

As to a one-state solution, given that this is what worked in Northern Ireland and in Spain, as well as South Africa, it does seem reasonable.

As with Germany, perhaps allocating some spending to aiding a populace rather than fostering a new generation of vendetta by bombing them, would bring the two sides together? People who have a better QOL are less likely to be violent.

Civillians and those who do not want to take part in the fighting have been allowed to move south for their own safety while the IDF deals with the numerous underground tunnels from which Hamas operates. This is not an ethnic cleansing (though easy to portray it as one), and if they're not allowed to go back when this is over then I'm willing to put down my Israeli passport and call it quits (I will cerainly vote against any politician who makes such a suggestion).

The conflict is insignificant in the sense that hundreds of thousands have been killed and displaced in other conflicts raging in the middle east, which has been largely ignored by the international community and the "ceasefire" crowd. Not to mention the fact that Hamas's ministry of health counts all deaths as civillians, while in truth a lot were probably combatants, and this is then treated as gospel by the international community. This is a major source of frustration among Israelis, and in my opinion an obstacle to having an honest discussion around this.

Regarding a one state solution - up to those living here. Currently, it doesn't seem to be a realistic solution, will probably be rejected by the majority, and will not end the fighting anyway.

Finally, regarding aid, Hamas received tons of money. It just chose to use it for military purposes instead of bettering the lives of their people. The tunnels alone cost an estimated 150$ million (or 200-300$ per meter). We can only imagine how much better life in Gaza would have been if this was spent otherwise.

>>>The conflict is insignificant in the sense that hundreds of thousands have been killed and displaced in other conflicts raging in the middle east, which has been largely ignored by the international community and the "ceasefire" crowd.

We are talking about the displacement of 2.3m people, so rather more. As to being allowed to go back- to what? Schools and hospitals have been demolished, there's no justification for that. Clear the building and move on, I'm struggling to understand why you would destroy a school etc. The conclusion you might come to is that with nothing left there, Palestinians 'should move into the Sinai' aka displacement. To add to this, denying access to medical supplies is not humane (https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2023/12/5/israel-and-who-in-o... This is the WHO complaining here) and appears to be encouraging diseases to spread, killing more of the population.

As you have implied, this conflict extends well back before Oct, we could look at several incidents which have been ignored such as the 2018 Gaza border peaceful protests where Palestinians were massacred (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2018%E2%80%932019_Gaza_border_...) With incidents like that, denying access to basic human rights like water and electricity (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water_supply_and_sanitation_...), this exacerbates the problems there massively. These are things which can be fixed from the Israeli side why aren't they?

To illustrate how disjointed the Israeli government thinking is, and how unlikely this conflict is about Hamas, I'd point you to https://www.axios.com/2023/03/20/bezalel-smotrich-jordan-gre...

When the senior finance minister is saying things like this, in addition to the many faked IDF videos eg. https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/israel-blames-translati...

You may well doubt the veracity of statements from Israel on an endgame plan. I would suggest, if you live there, talk to Palestinians in the West Bank, to appreciate the full extent of the impact Israeli policy (https://www.vox.com/world-politics/2023/11/22/23972908/pales... and illegal settlement in the West Bank) is having.

I appreciate your principled stance on the conflict, but if the time comes for you to hand in your passport, it will be too late by then.

You are not arguing honestly by claiming it's 55 "commanders" vs [inflated number] civilians.

It's very likely the 2:1 ratio of civilian:Hamas is correct given the intense ground battle and that the 17-19K death toll clearly is includes thousands of Hamas fighters. The ratio of civilian deaths for similar urban wars is much worse.

Ok, that's fair to argue over the figures. The point I was making was that displacing the entire Gazan population is not insignificant, and more indicative of ethnic cleansing than a small conflict. As to the other points about fostering integration rather than segregation, those go here unanswered as they are valid.

I'll link https://ncase.me/polygons/ here, as a simplified example of why this matters. I would also add that this is going in the opposite direction here, thanks to this conflict amplifying extreme views, and unhelpful and discriminatory laws such as Administrative Detention https://www.hrw.org/news/2023/11/29/why-does-israel-have-so-...

>we've tried that

Here's a former Israeli official responding to this claim better than I reasonably could:

https://www.economist.com/by-invitation/2023/10/10/the-crisi...

https://www.hoover.org/profiles/shlomo-brom

>[Shlomo Brom] retired from the Israel Defense Forces, where he held the position of director of strategic planning in the general staff, in 1998. He was also the deputy national security advisor, 2000–2001.

And here's an interview with Daniel Levy, one of the Oslo Accords Israeli negotiators, sharing his views about that process and the Gaza withdrawal: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3a6O-ZeW5zQ

Gaza has border with Egypt not controlled by Israel. In fact, ~150k people left Gaza in 2022, and numbers from 2023 are of similar scale [1]. I wouldn't call it a prison

[1] https://twitter.com/Aizenberg55/status/1665745935589076992

The Rafah crossing is effectively controlled by Israel as well. Egypt gets ~$1.5B/yr in defense aid from the US ever since the six day war in exchange for playing nice with Israel. That has been interpreted by Egypt to mean including Israel in decisions regrading the Rafah crossing and enforcing the Israeli blockade there.

I'm sure you're aware of the indefinite blockade? And what Hamas did before that? etc. Let's not have another debate that brings out the facts piecemeal; it's polarizing, for one thing, and it's also misleading to bring them out in isolation. Many following the issue know them by now.

I'm not aware. What are you talking about?

The internationally recognized State of Palestine is made up of two disjoint territories: Gaza and the West Bank. Israel gave peace a chance and left Gaza in 2005. The Palestinians immediately turned Gaza into a forward base and started attacking Israel. Israel only started the "blockade" (inspecting imports into Gaza) in 2007.

This statement is very uninformed. Isreal left Gaza very logn time ago. They had an election and Hamas came to power, and they never hold an election after. There is no land dispute between Isreal and Gaza (Unlike Westbank where there are serious disputes). The main problem is that Hamas and its supporter Iran consistentnly in word and in practice declared that want to wipe out and destroy Isreal. It is not about some land disupte. They want the whole Isreal gone. Now, the question is would it be wise to let this group of people with clear intention to completely destroy Israel have open borders? They make missles even without open borders.

If you want to be really honest here. The issue is that Hamas need to agree that Israel has the right to exist. Period. As far as they don't, I see this war very well justified similar to the War with Japanese Empire or Nazi Germany.

> Isreal left Gaza very logn time ago.

Israel has not left Gaza.

> They had an election and Hamas came to power, and they never hold an election after.

Israel has obstructed agreements between the Fatah-led Palestinian Authority and Hamas in Gaza on all-Palestine elections on several occasions since then (the fact that some people who would be voters in such elections live in occupied territory outside of what Israel claims as Israel but which is currently administered by Israel, among other factors, gives Israel the power to do this.)

> There is no land dispute between Isreal and Gaza

Yes, there is. Or, rather, there is no dispute at all that the kill zone of officially 100m and in practice up to 1500m that has been enforced by Israel since it supposed "disengagement" on the Gaza side of the security fence is Gaza, and not Israel, and that Israel is exercising control of that swath of Gaza territory, against the wishes and interests (and lives) of the people living in Gaza.

> The issue is that Hamas need to agree that Israel has the right to exist. Period.

Out of Israel, Fatah (the governing party of the PA centered in the West Bank), and Hamas, the only one that hasn't accepted the 1967 borders of Israel, with presently-occupied territories (plus Gaza, for those who accept Israel's claim that it is not presently occupied) outside of those borders as a Palestinian State is Israel.

Israeli rhetoric about other people needing to accept their right to exist is exactly backwards.

Israel left Gaza, and uprooted its own citizens, in an attempt to follow the 1990s model of gradually letting Palestinians have self determination and seeing if it lead to a corresponding reduction in attacks and planning of Israeli destruction. It proved a disastrous attempt, as Hamas (and Fatah who at that time still committed numerous terrorist attacks too) and lead many Israelis to double down on the belief that Palestinians would never give up on genocide against Israel.

The 100m "kill zone" has been proved necessary beyond doubt now. But if your claim is that total military and settler withdrawal besides 100m near the border for security means that Gaza was still occupied and its people justified in using terrorism, then it just shows the extremes that pro Palestinians will go to justify atrocities and explains why Israelis are tired of giving their implacable enemies the benefit of the doubt.

> Israel left Gaza, and uprooted its own citizens,

Those were settlers, attempting to lay claim to land in Gaza

Sorry, but this adds nothing to the discussion. Yes, they were settlers (I don't think anyone in this sub-thread argued otherwise). Yes, they shouldn't have been there in the first place. And yet the Israeli government uprooted them at great pain for all involved (after encouraging them to settle there in the first place). Some interpret this as some grand political manuever intended to divide the Palestinians and make a diplomatic solution impossible. This is an odd assertion in my opinion since how could anyone have foreseen that Hamas would be voted into power and spiral us into more than a decade of war? I for one believe it was a gesture of good will (probably brought about by external pressure considering it was Ariel Sharon who led it, originally a strong pro-settlments politician), and an experiment to see what would happen if Israel returned land without an official agreement as all attempts at negotiations have failed at that point in time. The fact that this did not work has a lot to do with the choices made collectively by Palestinians at least as much as those made by Israelis. To say otherwise ignores their agency and freewill in these events.

> There is no land dispute between Isreal and Gaza

Of course there's a land dispute! Something like 70% of Gazans are direct descendants of refugees, or refugees themselves, of the original 1948 Nakba, which was literally when the Palestinians were violently forced out of their homes and driven into perpetual refugee status. Now those that live in Gaza, even before October 7, live under a perpetual blockade which quite literally restricts the calories entering the region, along with every other necessary resource (gas, steel, etc).

How could one, knowing that context, characterize it as "not a land dispute"? Really what you mean is that there are no Israeli settlements in Gaza right now. Which is true but besides the point, and also ignores that there quite literally were settlements, but Israel forced the zionist* settlers out when they withdrew their physical occupation of Gaza all those years ago (replacing the physical occupation with the blockades, border restrictions, policies of shooting anyone approaching the border wall with sniper rifles, etc)

* I know this term is loaded with a lot of baggage, in part because many seem to think it's a dogwhistle for "the jews", but it's the most accurate descriptor for the philosophy motivating these settlers. Settling the west bank is wrong, but settling gaza is next-level crazy. You have to be extremely ideologically possessed to want to establish an Israeli settlement there because it sure as hell isn't a nice place to live.

> Hamas need to agree that Israel has the right to exist.

Agreed

And maybe Israel needs to agree that Palestine has the right to exist

Israel is a democracy made up of various parties with a whole spectrum of opinions. Some are for a two state solution (center-left), some for a one state solution in the form of "greater israel" (hard right, fringe elements if you ask me), and others that honestly just don't give it much thought. Hamas, on the other hand, is quite ideological about its stance with regards to the destruction of Israel.

> Hamas, on the other hand, is quite ideological about its stance with regards to the destruction of Israel.

> Israel is a democracy made up of various parties with a whole spectrum of opinions.

That may be so but the Israeli state as a whole has been quite consistent over the last few decades in its systematic destruction of any political or geographical possible basis of a Palestinian state, be it in the West Bank or Gaza.

Not true. There have been serious peace attempts and real changes in every decade since 1967.

True.

However as far as I can tell the settlements in the West Bank have grown through every government since the occupation - something which fundamentally undermines any moves towards a resolution.

Any attempt at peace has poor prospects if a significant part of civil society and army is dead set on colonisation.

Any yes, I'm aware of the complexities of Israeli politics and society.

Before Netanyahu there were at least four prime ministers - Ehud Olmert, Ehud Barak, Shimon Peres, and Yitzhak Rabin - who've made honest attempts at peace. Not to mention Ariel Sharon who has, despite being a hard right-winger, lead the disengagement from Gaza (at a tremendous political cost). You seem to be placing the responsibility for these failures entirely on one side.

> Ariel Sharon who has, despite being a hard right-winger, lead the disengagement from Gaza

This was not an attempt to further the peace process. It was motivated by the expense and difficulty of a military occupation of a densely populated urban area.

> You seem to be placing the responsibility for these failures entirely on one side.

Please, no need for that. I'm aware of Hamas' efforts to counter any moves towards peace. And of the effects of the suicide bombing campaign.

Similarly any talk of peace from the Israeli government is meaningless while settlement of the West Bank continues.

> Similarly any talk of peace from the Israeli government is meaningless while settlement of the West Bank continues.

The same can be said of the terror attacks. I strongly agree that the settlements are an obstacle to peace and apologize if my comment came off as aggressive. But you have to realize that this is a deadlock. No Israeli leader can stop the settlements as long as there are terror attacks, and no Palestinian leader can stop the terror attacks as long as there are settlements. That is our tragedy I suppose.

The full quote

'Israel will exist and will continue to exist until Islam will obliterate it, just as it obliterated others before it.'

You are aware in Islam there’s a concept of God dealing with the oppressors, right?

What you're apparently referring to is slight change in Hamas charter in 1997.

In fact, what they actually said was "Hamas advocates the liberation of all of Palestine but is ready to support the state on 1967 borders without recognising Israel or ceding any rights"

i.e. they would support the creation a Palestinian state within 1967 borders in the interim but not give up their fight for the rest of Israel.

This "softening" (as one left-wing newspaper called it apparently unironically) was in contrast with their previous stance which would reject a Palestinian state offer if it was based 1967 borders.

They have never gone back on their stated aim to reconquer all of Israel and never indicated they will tolerate Israel existing.

Israel may have left but they have had a blockade since then, not just on their border but sea and air as well. UN considers it to be occupied territory, Israel controls food and water. Human rights organisations calls it an open air prison. Doesn't sound like a situation that would be fruitful for peace?

Hamas was elected as Bush pushed for elections too early as he wanted to solve the situation before his term ended, PA was unpopular due to corruption. When Hamas won the US pushed PA to do a coup which failed, this caused Hamas to take over Gaza completely and push out PA and stopping future elections.

Hamas is certainly the main problem now, but the situation was caused by typical US fuckery, Netanyahu supporting Hamas didn't help either. Others big problems are the apartheid state of Israel and their systematic stealing of land in the West Bank. If what they have in the West Bank is the kind peace that Israel wants then I can see why people are resisting them.

Israel supplies only a small percentage of Gaza water.

Israel left in 2005, the "blockade" (which ignores the third border with Egypt) started in 2007 after Hamas seized control and Israel found itself with an enemy worse than Fatah despite it's largest since the Sinai withdrawal to exchange land for peace.

Natanyahu "supporting" Hamas was a policy of containment (coupled with recent pre-Oct-7 increase in work permits to Israel amogst other overtures) and which led to the October 7th. Israelis think a ceasefire would result in resumption of containment and eventually another October 7th so no go.

Gaza requires fuel to pump water, who controls access to fuel?

While Egypt physically controls the border Israel decides what and who can move through it.

Nethanyahu supports Hamas (see money transports most recently, but they've done it for decades) to divide and conquer Palestine between Hamas and PA. And a good Boogeyman is always good for staying in power, though he is likely finished.

How does one keep an underground tunnel network abutting a large body of water dry?

In Gaza, all they would have to do is put their weapons down. Blockade and restrictions would lift, and Gaza could be prosperous.

In the West Bank, I agree that the settlements are abhorrent and need to be removed.

This is what happened when Gazans tried nonviolent protest:

https://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/2020-03-06/ty-article-ma...

https://archive.ph/vDhPP

I'm not implying that October 7 was justified.

Seeing what happened on 7th of October one can understand why IDF is nervous about people getting close (500m is the official buffer zone as I understand) to the fence. Not implying that competition in number of knees shot is justified.

> Seeing what happened on 7th of October one can understand why IDF is nervous about people getting close (500m is the official buffer zone as I understand) to the fence.

The Israel-declared buffer zone is 100m or total exclusion, and 300m where only farmers may enter and only by foot. In practice the murder risk area (during normal times, not during publicized invasions, where the murder risk area is more universal) is 1000-1500m.

This is, of course, inside Gaza; nothing prohibits Israel from backing its border installations off a safe distance from the border and having a murder zone in Israel instead, which would at least be superficially consistent with its pretense not to occupy or exert any control within Gaza between its periodic invasions.

> nothing prohibits Israel from backing its border installations off a safe distance from the border

I don't get how it can work. So they make the exclusion zone outside of the fence, not inside. Then they would need to make another fence around this exclusion zone. Then peaceful protesters destroy the old fence, and we are back to square 0.

> Then peaceful protesters destroy the old fence, and we are back to square 0.

Shooting people who cross a border without permission, while also not optimal in the case of peaceful protestors, is quite different than shooting peaceful protestors on the foreign side of your border in a territory you assert is not occupied and which further claim you have disenaged from and are not exerting control over.

Israel limiting its arbitrary murder zone to Israel proper would, while still arguably acting immorally, be at least acting consistently with its claim to have disengaged from and ended its occupation of Gaza. Baby steps.

The common idea of how borders work relies on the fact that borders are mutually recognized, and authorities on both side of the border collaborate to keep the border secure. This way you can maintain the exclusion zone in no man's land.

Border between Gaza Strip and Israel on the other hand is not even officially delineated AFAIK, it just de facto exists where the barrier is. So if you make a new barrier 500 meters away, and let the old one be slowly destroyed - as Hamas is not interested in maintaining it - it doesn't change anything, except the de facto border is now 500 away from the old place.

The hypothetical I'm referring to doesn't require protests.

1. Gaza declares "we're done trying to kill you guys" and means it. 2. A few quite months go by 3. Embargo and restriction start slowly lifting 4. More quiet months, life in Gaza improves 5. Repeat steps 3-4 for a few years. 6. Gaza is free, independent and thriving.

No, no, no, that would mean "legitimizing the occupation", no party in Gaza would be able to declare this policy and stay in power.

> For example, Gaza had been described as an open air prison for almost 2 decades because its borders, imports, sea usage, had all been controlled by Israel.

Those restrictions are in place for a reason, which Hamas has confirmed on October 7th. And, what suffering does this cause exactly? Gaza had an HDI larger than that of many countries not at war, and had areas described as "wealthy".

Any close reading of this conflicts shows that it is an ideological conflict. Hamas and their supporters in Gaza actually prefer that Gaza becomes a hellhole, to rally allies to their side. Do you really think they want a peaceful and prosperous Gaza? No, they want to blow up the conflict, to energize it, to force a reckoning, with the ultimate goal of reclaiming land from the river to the sea, per their own charter.

Under such circumstances, what should Israel do? Pack up their bags and leave?

I don't really feel like clearing up all the half-truths or outright lies here, but I wanted to just call out one:

> with the ultimate goal of reclaiming land from the river to the sea, per their own charter.

The "from the river to the sea" is the language in the Likud charter, the party ruling Israel and dropping thousands of 2-ton bombs on Gaza right now. The popular chant "from the river to the sea palestine will be free" is a direct response to that. I'm unaware of Hamas' charter using the "from the river to the sea" language, although I'm open for correction here because I have not read the entire charter.

Are you claiming ignorance of the fact that the Hamas charter originally called for the liquidation of Israel? This is common knowledge. Granted, they have revised it recently to tone down the genocidal language, but I don't think anybody should be deceived about what their intentions are.

As the history of the slogan "from the river to the sea", please read on it at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/From_the_river_to_the_sea, it has little to do with Likud.

> it has little to do with Likud.

https://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/original-party-platform...

"The right of the Jewish people to the land of Israel is eternal and indisputable and is linked with the right to security and peace; therefore, Judea and Samaria will not be handed to any foreign administration; between the Sea and the Jordan there will only be Israeli sovereignty."

An easy check gives that Likud was formed in 70s while the phrase was popularized in 60s by pro-Palestinian movements.

Not that it makes this "who's invented the phrase" argument less of a strawman.

Hamas is certainly a bad actor. I'm of the opinion that while Israel is somewhat better, it still did some bad things and is doing bad things that should be addressed. I wouldn't describe the Israeli government as a "defender" and leave it at that.

> Under such circumstances, what should Israel do? Pack up their bags and leave?

That is exactly what they should do: End the occupation.

How? There are generations born in Israel, people who have nothing to do with occupation, they were born into this situation same like Palestinians. Why would they leave?

My father is Belorussian jew, mother Dagestanian Ukrainian, I was born in Russia. I'm Israely. Where exactly do you want me to pack up my bags and leave? Because I WILL fight you if you'll try to deport me to Russia...

I consider calls "to end the occupation" a sign of lack of understanding of the other side, we have nowhere to go.

Israel controls Gaza's borders. Israel controls the sea. Israel controls Gaza's airspace. Israel controls the products entering and exiting Gaza. Israel controls even more areas than this. The occupation is ongoing. And it needs to end.

I do not care if you continue your live in Russia or Israel...

You haven't answered "How?".

By not leaving, but ending the subjugation as occupiers

they would stay there as they please as long as they aren't subjugating palestine as occupiers.

Uhm, have you asked "them"?

I yet to see "let's end the occupation" call that resulted in a less naive conversation.

What you propose is not a plan or a decent answer to "how to end occupation".

when apartheid south africa ended, the people remained. populations were not mass deported as you're suggesting must happen to end occupation - simply ahistorical. why is that more farfetched to you than mass deportations (to, as you say, where?)

btw, i used "they" to refer to the same "they" that you wrote. don't insinuate anything with scare quotes.

> what should Israel do? Pack up their bags and leave? > That is exactly what they should do: End the occupation.

If you'll ask Palestinians ending occupation means exactly that, Jews leaving, thus the famous slogan, Hamas charter, etc.

I think you are being deliberately obtuse at this point, so this conversation is over on my part.

The Hamas charter advocates for the 1967 borders as a "formula for national consensus". Goodbye!

By "Pack up their bags and leave" I meant, do Israelis have to vacate their country altogether as a condition of peace?

I understand Israel left Gaza in 2005, so I'm not sure what occupation is being referred to here. If you mean the blockade, don't you think Hamas laying down arms and renouncing violence would be a good first step towards convincing the Israelis to lift the blockade?

> I understand Israel left Gaza in 2005, so I'm not sure what occupation is being referred to here.

Israel controls Gaza's borders. Israel controls the sea. Israel controls Gaza's airspace. Israel controls the products entering and exiting Gaza. Israel controls even more areas than this. The occupation is ongoing.

> [Don't] you think Hamas laying down arms and renouncing violence would be a good first step towards convincing the Israelis to lift the blockade?

People living under occupation have a right to armed resistance under international law. Israel has no right to continue its occupation.

This is a longer version of "Israel has the right to defend itself". Maybe Israel shouldn't exist but since it does I think we can agree it has a right to defend itself since if it doesn't innocents will be harmed/killed/raped.

That said, even in war, there are long established rules of engagement in war designed to protect (as possible) non-combatants. Israel is not respecting these rules at all. And beyond the insane death toll and indiscriminate bombing, Gazans are hungry and without water and shelter.

Of course, Israel should exercise restraint, especially since it's better armed and has such sophisticated intelligence. Now it's making itself a pariah (except in the US)

> That said, even in war, there are long established rules of engagement in war designed to protect (as possible) non-combatants. Israel is not respecting these rules at all.

Israel absolutely should be respecting the rules of war. As far as I know, it is.

People often like to claim that it's not, hinting at some vague "war crimes" or claiming that Israel is targeting civilians, but there is no proof of that happening on purpose, that I'm aware.

This is complicated by Hamas deliberately using human shields and trying to get Gazans killed to make Israel look bad. It is a very complicated situation to fight in and Israel is absolutely making mistakes, but I urge you, show evidence of it actually committing war crimes in the killing of citizens.

> And beyond the insane death toll and indiscriminate bombing, Gazans are hungry and without water and shelter.

Hamas is the government responsible for Gazans. if they are hungry, it's because Hamas is failing in its duty to its citizens. They are literally stealing food from aid trucks in order to feed themselves (and probably stockpile food in tunnels) instead of feeding their own citizens.

Not to mention, they could return the hostages and surrender and spare themselves and their citizens all of this death and pain.

As for the "insane death tool" - what makes it "insane" in your mind?

Note: every death is a tragedy. Civilians dying, on either side, is tragic. Hell, even soldiers and Hamas militants dying is tragic - every death is a tragedy. I'm talking about all this analytically but the death and suffering here is horrible.

Whether Israel is proportionately attacking Gaza remains to be seen. Just because Hamas doesn't care about Gazans doesn't mean that Israel is giving them a reasonable opportunity to thrive, though. That's without mentioning the settler colonialism debacle, which is not as one-sided as some people claim but still an injustice to Palestinians.

> Just because Hamas doesn't care about Gazans doesn't mean that Israel is giving them a reasonable opportunity to thrive, though.

Yes and no. Israel definitely hasn't had clean hands these last 15 years, but on the other hand it did withdraw from Gaza and leave it to themselves to manage. They really, really could've tried to better themselves, the area, etc, and instead chose to continue pursuing violence (via electing Hamas), which led to them being blockaded etc.

Don't forget, Israel was allowing more and more Gazan citizens to enter Israel to work. There are terrible stories (I don't know for sure if these are verified though) that many Gazan workers, who worked for years in the cities surrounding Gaza, actually gave information to Hamas to help them carry out the attack.

> That's without mentioning the settler colonialism debacle, which is not as one-sided as some people claim but still an injustice to Palestinians.

Yes, there's definitely at least some merit to this.

But that's true of almost every country. All of them have complicated histories. How many countries were newly created since WW2?

Only in this one case, a group that arguably got a bad deal (and it is arguable), is still clinging to violence and the idea that they'll "return" 75 years later.

> But that's true of almost every country. All of them have complicated histories.

A) that's kind of saying colonisation is OK because other countries did it

B) the colonisation in Israel is ongoing and extreme. The West Bank is the site of continuing expropriation and settlement with the explicit aim of shunting the Palestinians into tiny enclaves and rendering any possibility of a Palestinian state impossible, and creating something strongly resembling apartheid South Africa.

See e.g. public statements by Naftali Bennett or Benjamin Netanyahu

I think we know enough to say it's disproportionate. 15,000+ dead in Gaza, many more wounded.

https://www.reuters.com/world/middle-east/how-many-palestini...

Also remember the Israel had (has?) a policy of responding disproportionately: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dahiya_doctrine

The article nominally under discussion in this post claims that Israel is torturing Gazan civilians without cause. As far as I can tell it’s a convincing demonstration.

> Israel, as a state, has the moral duty to fight back and make sure this never happens again. Otherwise, it breaks the most basic contract between citizen and state ("I give up on violence and in turn you protect me from violence").

If violent retribution alone could ensure "this never happens again," the conflict would have ended long ago. Instead, it is over a century old.

> Finally, an honest question, what would you do? How would you respond in this situation?

Israel has no good options, only terrible ones and even worse ones, but: invade Gaza on the ground, block by block, instead of indiscriminate airstrikes. Accept higher casualties among Israel's forces to protect civilians. Give civilians as much stability as possible, as long as they follow orders ("if you are peaceful, we'll ensure you have food, water, medical care, shelter; step out of line and you will never be seen again.") Meanwhile, end the settlements in the West Bank, stop sidelining Fatah, show that there is a path forward for Palestinians if they are peaceful.

> Israel, as a state, has the moral duty to fight back and make sure this never happens again.

This is often said and I’m sure often in good faith, but I always find it a bit unsettling. If by “making sure it never happens again” you mean stronger protection of the boarder going forward it’s fine of course. But if you’re referring to someone kind of offensive operation (as I assume most who say this are, since they are defending an offensive operation) I can’t see how that would be possible within the law of armed conflict. It would require sending Gaza back to the stone age and keeping it that way forever, or permanent occupation, or something like that.

We've tried defense, didn't work out. Which laws of armed conflict are you specifically referring to?

As it’s not clear to me how this goal could possibly be accomplished I can’t refer to any specific international law. But the spirit of the law does not allow for the indefinite subjugation of a neighboring people, regardless of what some of them have done.

It's impossible to describe Gaza 2005-2022 as indefinite subjugation. Quite the opposite. It could have become Singapore if not for Hamas.

> It's impossible to describe Gaza 2005-2022 as indefinite subjugation.

I wasn’t. I was describing Gaza 2023- under a regime that can guarantee nothing like October 7 can ever happen again as indefinite subjugation.

Then why isn’t the West Bank Singapore?

Abbas is no Lee Kuan Yew, and that comparison is already way more charitable than Abbas deserves...

Wikipedia describes Lee as such: "Lee oversaw Singapore's transformation into a developed country with a high-income economy within his premiership. In the process, he forged a highly effective, anti-corrupt government and civil service. Lee eschewed populist policies in favour of long-term social and economic planning, championing civic nationalism through meritocracy[3] and multiracialism[4][5] as governing principles, making English the lingua franca[6] to integrate its immigrant society and to facilitate trade with the world, whilst mandating bilingualism in schools to preserve the students' mother tongue and ethnic identity."

That's a forward looking vision, not a backwards looking vision like the "Palestinian cause" that seems to end with restitution.

Would any politician with such a vision like Lee's even have a chance with Palestine's electorate? No idea, elections were last held in 2006...

> Finally, an honest question, what would you do? How would you respond in this situation?

The situation is by design. I am not going to pretend I don't think Netanyahu wanted this.

Based on what? He's a cynical real politik kind of guy, but I doubt this is how he hoped this would play out. At the end of the day, I believe that his legacy is extremely important to him, and he probably did not want to be remembered as the one in power during one of the worse massacres against Jews since the holocaust. Not to mention that it's highly likely he'll be voted out during the next elections (TBD...)

Based on his policies and character. But, obviously, I don't know for sure.

We need to wait 10 - 30 years til people involved starts to write memoirs.

His policy towards Hamas was one of containment and not making a decision, which is classic Netanyahu behavior. I don't know whether or not his biographies agree with this, but this is pretty much the consensus among Israelis. Again, I truly doubt that October 7th is what he was aiming for (happy to change my mind if there is evidence otherwise).

None of those had a massacre like Oct 7 with 1200 dead (and as a proportion of Israeli population count that makes it proportionally more devastating than 9/11 for Israel, not too mention it was also more cold blooded and barbaric in methodology).

A better example is eg Mosul which had a far higher death toll, as well as other Isis warzones.

Plus none of those threats are anything like Gaza (and indeed Jenin) which is 5 minutes drive from Israeli towns and so a far greater persistent threat.

Plus those terrorists aren't part of a pattern of repeated wars by neighbouring countries for the same cause that Israel had to endure since its founding.

... amongst many other differences

Countries being attacked by a sovereign city-state?